INICIO ÚLTIMO NÚMERO LAST ISSUE

×

Este estudio se enmarca en un proyecto más amplio del grupo de historia de CIRIEC-España, cuyo objetivo es analizar la evolución jurídica del Cooperativismo y de la Economía Social. Para ello, la investigación examina tanto fuentes jurídicas como no jurídicas, integrando aportes teóricos y casos prácticos. En este sentido, el artículo se centra en el dictamen de 1872 de Eduardo Pérez Pujol, krausista y profesor de la Universidad de Valencia, quien vinculó el cooperativismo con la Sociedad Económica de Amigos del País. Su trabajo influyó en la futura Institución Libre de Enseñanza (ILE), y refleja el espíritu reformista de la época, marcado por la renovación social, científica y pedagógica. Pérez Pujol destacó la educación científica y los valores de libertad y responsabilidad social, pilares también del cooperativismo. Un ejemplo de estudio es la cooperativa valenciana “La Proletaria”, que inspiró leyes progresistas durante la Segunda República. La metodología empleada se basa en el análisis de fuentes, completadas con bibliografía especializada.

×

EDUARDO PÉREZ PUJOL: THE SOCIAL QUESTION AND COOPERATIVISM IN THE MID-19TH CENTURY IN VALENCIA

This study forms part of a broader research initiative undertaken by the history working group of CIRIEC-Spain, which seeks to reconstruct the legal and ideological evolution of cooperativism and the social economy in Spain. Through an analysis of legislative sources, theoretical contributions, and practical case studies, the research illuminates the intellectual and institutional foundations that shaped Spain’s cooperative movement. A central figure in this narrative is Eduardo Pérez Pujol, a 19th-century Krausist professor whose 1872 report established a crucial link between cooperativism and the Sociedad Económica de Amigos del País de Valencia. His work emerged during a period of profound social and educational reform, influencing later developments such as the Institución Libre de Enseñanza (ILE) and early cooperative legislation during the Second Republic.

This study examines Pérez Pujol’s contributions within the broader historical context of 19th-century Spain -a period marked by political instability, industrialization, and the rise of labor movements. It explores how Krausist thought, with its emphasis on scientific education, social responsibility, and ethical liberalism, provided an intellectual framework for cooperativism and progressive social reforms.

The last third of the 19th century in Spain was a period of profound transformation. The Glorious Revolution of 1868 ushered in a brief era of progressive governance, culminating in the 1869 Constitution, which expanded civil liberties. However, political instability soon followed, including the short-lived First Republic (1873-1874), cantonal uprisings, and the eventual Bourbon Restoration under Alfonso XII in 1874. The 1876 Constitution marked a return to conservatism, yet social unrest persisted due to rapid industrialization, labor exploitation, and regionalist movements.

Industrial modernization, though slower than in France or England, led to the emergence of a growing proletariat that demanded better working conditions. Workers’ associations, initially suppressed, gained legal recognition under Sagasta’s government (1881-1883). The 1887 Law of Associations and the 1906 Law of Agricultural Unions reflected increasing state engagement with labor issues. Meanwhile, the Commission for Social Reforms (1883) and later the Institute for Social Reforms (1903) were established to address workers’ rights, setting the stage for future cooperative legislation.

Krausist philosophy, introduced in Spain by Julián Sanz del Río, emphasized rationalism, ethical liberalism, and social harmony. Its influence extended into education and social reform, most notably through the Institución Libre de Enseñanza (ILE), founded in 1876 by Francisco Giner de los Ríos. The ILE promoted secular, scientific education and social responsibility -principles that aligned closely with cooperative values.
Eduardo Pérez Pujol, a Krausist professor at the University of Valencia, played a pivotal role in connecting these ideas to practical social reform. His 1872 report to the Sociedad Económica de Amigos del País de Valencia articulated a vision of cooperativism as a means of economic democratization and workers’ emancipation. His work reflected broader European trends, particularly the influence of the Rochdale Pioneers, whose cooperative model inspired Spanish labor movements.

Pérez Pujol’s report was a foundational text that linked cooperativism with educational and economic reform. He argued that scientific education was essential for workers to achieve economic independence, a principle later championed by the ILE. His analysis of cooperative societies emphasized their potential to mitigate class conflict by fostering collective ownership and democratic governance.

A concrete example of these ideas in practice was the cooperative La Proletaria in Valencia. Studied by Pérez Pujol, this initiative demonstrated how worker-led enterprises could improve living standards while promoting solidarity. Despite organizational challenges and legal obstacles -common among early cooperatives- La Proletaria exemplified the Krausist ideal of social harmony through economic cooperation.

The principles outlined by Pérez Pujol and other reformists laid the groundwork for Spain’s first cooperative law during the Second Republic (1931). This legislation institutionalized cooperativism as a tool for social justice, reflecting decades of intellectual and practical experimentation.

This study employs a historical methodology, drawing on: legislative documents, Laws on associations, labor rights, and cooperatives; theoretical texts, Pérez Pujol’s writings, Krausist literature, and ILE publications; case studies: Archival records of cooperatives like La Proletaria; secondary literature: Scholarly analyses of 19th-century Spanish social movements.

Eduardo Pérez Pujol’s work represents an early articulation of social liberalism in Spain, blending economic freedom with cooperative principles. His influence on the ILE and later cooperative legislation underscores the enduring impact of Krausist thought on Spain’s social economy. By examining his contributions alongside broader historical developments, this study highlights the interconnectedness of intellectual, political, and labor movements in shaping modern cooperativism. This research not only reconstructs a key chapter in Spain’s economic history but also offers insights into contemporary debates on worker empowerment, education, and social justice. Future studies could further explore regional variations in cooperative development and the transnational exchange of reformist ideas in 19th-century Europe.

×

El jurista Joaquín Díaz de Rábago publicó la Historia y situación actual de la cooperación en España en 1895. Se trata de un valioso estudio acerca del estado de las cooperativas en el siglo XIX español. Utilizó una serie de informes elaborados por los gobernadores de provincias, a partir de las cooperativas registradas en sus informes, según la ley de asociaciones de 1887. Estos valiosos materiales, fuentes de conocimiento, dan actualidad a su trabajo y, por ello, sigue siendo consultada por los historiadores del cooperativismo. En este artículo estudio la obra y doy cuenta de la información presentada por el autor sobre las cooperativas, con la finalidad de ver cómo estaban en ese periodo del siglo XIX.

×

COOPERATIVES IN SPAIN, 19TH CENTURY. THE PERSPECTIVE OF JOAQUÍN DÍAZ DE RÁBAGO

The jurist Joaquín Díaz de Rábago published History and Current State of Cooperation in Spain in 1895. This valuable study examines the state of cooperatives in 19th-century Spain. To carry out his work, he used a series of reports prepared by provincial governors, based on cooperatives registered under the 1887 Associations Law. These significant materials lend enduring relevance to his work, which is why it continues to be consulted by historians of cooperativism. In this article, we analyze History and Current State of Cooperation in Spain… and present the information provided by the author on cooperatives.

The article reviews his university studies, academic background, and affinity for the progressive ideas of members of the Institución Libre de Enseñanza (Free Institution of Education), as well as his brief career as a professor and university administrator. It also examines his involvement in various societies and academies, his appointments to different positions-particularly from the 1880s onward, when he also began participating in the cooperative movement. The review of his time at the Faculty of Law of the Literary University of Santiago aims to show that, even as a student, he was already interested in economic issues-an interest that led him to form a close relationship with one of his mentors, Joaquín María Sanromá, a professor at that university in political economy, political law, and administrative law. Another objective in exploring this formative period is to highlight the friendship he developed with Eugenio Montero Ríos, with whom he shared Krausist ideas and the principles of the Institución Libre de Enseñanza (ILE). These elements reveal Díaz de Rábago’s progressive thinking. It is important to note that Montero Ríos had a distinguished political career, holding various positions in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. His friendship with Montero Ríos endured over time, and this relationship helps explain two key points: their collaboration in drafting certain legislative projects, particularly one related to the Associations Law, and the fact that this friendship gave him access to valuable documents that continue to provide historiographical value to his text on cooperativism.

The article also references Díaz de Rábago’s studies in law and philosophy. This is not incidental; rather, it demonstrates how both of his doctoral theses reflect his interest in economics. This biographical section is brief, as other historians have already explored his life in depth. Thus, the article only mentions his membership in various associations, such as the Economic Society of Friends of the Country, and his presidency of the Particular Council of the Charitable Conferences of Saint Vincent de Paul. While this might suggest an unorthodox jurist, it is also true that Díaz de Rábago was a member of the Royal Academy of Jurisprudence and Legislation. As a jurist, he participated in the city’s Social Reform Commission in 1886 and directed the Bank of Spain’s branch in Santiago de Compostela. The biographical section also notes that he served as director of the School of Arts and Crafts. Finally, it highlights his participation in the International Cooperative Congress held in London and his collaboration in founding the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA).

The article pays special attention to the authorship of Joaquín Díaz de Rábago’s various works, portraying him as a progressive intellectual concerned with what we would now call “social economy.” His contemporaries recognized this interest, linking it to his deep religious convictions. Pointing out this connection between his religious ideas and his interest in cooperativism helps us understand a broader historical process: the relationship between cooperativism and the Church. Brief mention is made of his works on the cooperative movement, including “English Consumer Cooperation,” his famous text Agricultural Credit,or Essential Bases for a Law on Cooperative Societies, and Rural Loan Banks: The Raiffeisen System.

Given his intellectual profile, the article assesses the historiographical significance of History and Current State of Cooperation in Spain. Here, the importance of his sources becomes evident. The 1887 Associations Law required the founders of associations -including cooperatives- to register them with provincial governors. Thus, when Díaz de Rábago decided to write his History and Current State of Cooperation…, he secured the Interior Minister’s request for reports from provincial governors on registered cooperatives. The article explains that these sources gave him an advantage over any other author of his time and have kept his work relevant to this day, despite any limitations that may be attributed to it. Furthermore, he enriched his study with bibliographic information from other authors such as Manuel Pedregal y Cañedo, Eduardo Pérez Pujol, Fernando Garrido, and José Manuel Piernas Hurtado.

Following this assessment, we deemed it appropriate to recover the data presented in Díaz de Rábago’s work and follow his chronological framework of three stages, which illustrate shifting governmental attitudes toward associations – in this case, cooperatives. We also adhered to his classification of cooperatives into four types: consumer cooperatives, industrial consumer cooperatives, producer cooperatives, and credit cooperatives. Based on this typology, he presents data city by city.

The first period, though the longest (beginning in the early 19th century and extending to the 1868 Revolution), provides the least information. The second period is the shortest, spanning just seven years. It documents ten cooperatives, all located in Barcelona and Valencia. While other scholars cited significantly higher numbers, Díaz de Rábago preferred to rely on well-documented information. The third period covers twenty years, from 1875 (the year of the Bourbon Restoration) to 1895. During this time, the number of cooperatives grew significantly due to the 1887 Associations Law, which mandated the registration of all associations, including cooperatives.

As we will see, consumer cooperatives are the most numerous, followed by producer cooperatives, credit cooperatives, and finally, a small number of industrial consumer cooperatives. The article concludes with an appendix listing the cooperatives recorded by Díaz de Rábago, organized by type.

These valuable materials, sources of knowledge, give his work lasting relevance, which is why it continues to be consulted by historians of cooperativism. In this article, we examine his work and present the information he provides on cooperatives, with the aim of understanding their condition during that historical period of the 19th century.

×

Una vez recuperada la capacidad legislativa del Parlament de Catalunya a partir de la aprobación del Estatut de 1932, la cámara catalana se ocupó de promulgar cinco normas sobre cooperativismo: la Llei de Bases de la Cooperació, la Llei de Cooperatives, la Llei de Sindicats Agrícoles y la Llei de la Caixa de Crèdit Agrícola i Cooperatiu i la Llei de Mutualitats. En este trabajo mostramos los debates que provocaron esas normas en la revista Acción Cooperatista, publicación de la Federación de Cooperativas de Catalunya. Explicar las controversias causadas por la normativa catalana sobre cooperativas en dicha revista nos muestra que el movimiento cooperativo catalán no era homogéneo ni uniforme. Además, también comprobamos que esa normativa sufrió campañas de desprestigio por otros sectores socioeconómicos del país.

×

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE CATALAN COOPERATIVE REGULATIONS IN THE MAGAZINE ACCIÓN COOPERATISTA (1933-1935): PROBLEMS AND DEBATES

The Second Spanish Republic (1931–1939) marked a transformative period for cooperative legislation in Catalonia. The 1931 Spanish Constitution granted autonomy to regions like Catalonia, which, under its 1932 Statute of Autonomy (Article 12.f), assumed exclusive legislative powers over cooperatives, mutual societies, and agricultural credit unions (pósitos). This legal shift enabled the Catalan Parliament (Parlament) to develop a comprehensive regulatory framework for its cooperative movement, distinct from the Spanish state’s 1931 cooperative law. Between 1933 and 1934, Catalonia passed five landmark laws: agricultural and cooperative credit bank act (10 August 1933); framework law on cooperation (17 February 1934); cooperatives act (17 March 1934); mutual societies act (22 March 1934); agricultural unions act (30 March 1934).

These laws established Catalonia’s cooperative model, emphasizing solidarity, non-profit principles, and institutional oversight through a Superior Council of Cooperation (Consell Superior de la Cooperació). However, this study moves beyond a traditional legal analysis to explore how these laws were received by their primary stakeholders: the cooperativists themselves.

This research adopts a social history of law approach, focusing on the perceptions of grassroots cooperativists rather than elite policymakers. The primary source is Acción Cooperatista (AC), the official journal of the Federación Regional de Cooperativas de Catalunya (1920–1938), which served as a platform for debate, news, and ideological exchange. The study analyzes AC’s coverage from 1933 to 1935, a period encompassing the laws’ enactment and early implementation, as well as the political upheaval of the October 1934 uprising, which suspended Catalan autonomy.

AC generally endorsed the new laws, framing them as progressive and aligned with international cooperative principles. Key arguments included: centralized oversight, the Consell Superior was praised for ensuring regulatory cohesion (AC, dec. 1933); financial autonomy, the Caixa de Crèdit Agrícola i Cooperatiu (Credit Bank) was hailed as a tool to reduce dependence on capitalist institutions (AC, aug. 1934); social solidarity, contributors like Joan Ventosa i Roig (a leading cooperativist) argued that the laws transcended class divisions, fostering economic democratization (AC, mar, 1934).

Despite broad support, the laws faced resistance from two fronts: external actors, guilds and merchants campaigned against cooperatives’ right to sell to non-members, fearing competition (AC, jan 1934); pharmacists lobbied to restrict cooperative pharmacies, leading to clashes over public health access (AC, nov 1934); internal divisions, “open door” vs. class-based cooperatives, the laws’ provision allowing non-workers to join sparked fierce debate. Reformists (e.g., Ventosa i Roig) saw this as essential for growth, while traditionalists (e.g., Magín Decel) viewed it as a betrayal of working-class solidarity (AC, apr. 1934); surplus distribution, some cooperatives resisted mandatory allocation of profits to reserve funds, preferring direct payouts to members (AC, feb. 1935).

The October 1934 uprising and subsequent suspension of Catalan autonomy raised fears that the laws would be repealed. AC documented how interim authorities sided with opponents like the Pharmacists’ Guild, rolling back protections for cooperative pharmacies (AC, nov 1934–Jan 1935). This period underscored the fragility of legal reforms in politically volatile contexts.

The requirement that cooperatives admit any applicant over 16 (unless statutory exceptions applied) polarized the movement: proponents (e.g., Ventosa i Roig) cited European models where inclusivity strengthened cooperatives; ppponents (e.g., A. Tobias) argued this diluted worker control, invoking the Rochdale Pioneers’ class-based ethos.

Article 56 of the Framework Law created a cooperative arbitration system, diverting disputes from ordinary courts to federations and the Consell Superior. AC supported this as more efficient and aligned with cooperative self-governance (AC, mar 1935).

The Caixa de Crèdit was a flagship achievement, but AC revealed tensions over its governance. While most praised its role in financing cooperatives, skeptics warned against state overreach (AC, aug 1934).

The study reveals that Catalan cooperativism was not monolithic: reformists embraced the laws as modernizing tools, while traditionalists resisted changes seen as undermining worker autonomy; external opposition (guilds, pharmacists) exploited political instability to weaken the laws post-October 1934; AC’s debates reflect broader tensions in interwar labor movements between inclusivity and class identity.

Theoretical and Practical Implications:

– Legal History “From Below”: This approach enriches understanding of how laws are interpreted by their subjects, not just their creators.
– Policy Lessons: The Catalan case highlights the challenges of legislating cooperativism in polarized societies, with relevance for contemporary debates on cooperative governance.

The impact of the Spanish Civil War on cooperative legislation remains underexplored. Contrasting Catalonia’s model with other European regions could reveal broader patterns in cooperative lawmaking.

×

Como portavoz público del georgismo español, Julio Senador Gómez fue uno de los propagandistas más influyentes de las ideas georgistas durante el primer tercio del siglo XX. Por un lado, aunque compartía la misma tendencia de simplificar las doctrinas georgistas con otros georgistas españoles de su época, Senador profundizó en el núcleo de dicha teoría y cimentó su pensamiento en ella. Por otro lado, como regeneracionista profundamente influenciado por las ideas coetáneas, su aceptación del georgismo trascendió sus límites teóricos, intentando profundizar en el georgismo al agregar varias ideas más o menos “regeneracionistas” e incluso “españolizadas”.

×

THE INHERITANCE AND EVOLUTION OF SPANISH GEORGISM: THE CASE OF JULIO SENADOR GÓMEZ

In the first third of the 20th century, Spain witnessed significant social, economic, and political transformations. Historians and economists generally characterize this period as one of economic expansion, despite earlier pessimistic assessments by figures such as Julio Senador Gómez. The process of urbanization brought with it a series of legislative reforms, notably the 1887 Law of Associations and the introduction of universal male suffrage in 1890, both of which empowered the populace by extending the right to vote and facilitating the formation of labor unions. This was paralleled by the emergence of new media, such as the press and radio, which played a pivotal role in disseminating progressive ideas and fostering greater public engagement. As these ideas permeated beyond intellectual circles, they reached a broader audience, thereby fueling increased demands for social reforms, including land redistribution and expanded rights.

Georgism, emerged as one of the ideological movements, gained prominence during this period, reaching its zenith in Spain in the early 20th century. Henry George’s ideas, notably his opposition to land speculation and his advocacy for a single land tax, became popular among those concerned about growing social inequalities. Although George’s ideas were largely dismissed by mainstream economists, they resonated with the broader public and some intellectuals in Spain. His seminal work, Progress and Poverty, was translated into Spanish, facilitating to the formation of a Spanish Georgist movement. Antonio Albendín, the leader of this movement, founded the Liga Española para el Impuesto Único (Spanish League for the Single Tax) in 1911, and the movement reached its peak with the convening of the first international Georgist Congress in 1913. However, the movement declined during the Spanish Civil War and was later suppressed under the Franco regime. Despite this, Georgist ideas remained influential among a select group of Spanish intellectuals until the 1930s.

The Spanish Georgist Julio Senador Gómez demonstrated a significant notable intellectual development in his thought after engaging with the ideas of Henry George, especially those articulated in Progress and Poverty. Senador’s writings, which reflect the principles of Georgism, show both convergence with and divergence from George’s theoretical framework, particularly in his adaption of these concepts to the Spanish context.

Initially, in his work Castilla en escombros (Castile in Ruins), Senador criticized Spain’s social and economic issues without clearly identifying a primary cause. However, upon encountering George’s theories, Senador adopted a more structured approach, emphasizing economic reform as the key to addressing Spain’s national issues. George’s central concept, the “single tax” on land, became a cornerstone of Senador’s reformist agenda, which he sought to convey in a more accessible manner to the broader Spanish public, aiming to incite enthusiasm for these ideas among the working class.
One major critique of Senador is that, due to his self-taught background, he oversimplified George’s comprehensive theories. He has been criticized for focusing predominantly on the concept of the single tax, while overlooking the deeper theoretical foundations of George’s ideas. However, Senador’s approach was largely driven by his desire to popularize reformist ideas. Although lacking formal economic education, his interpretations, though less technical, aimed to present these concepts in a way that was accessible and compelling for a wider audience.

Senador embraced George’s broader definition of “land” as encompassing all natural resources. He also shared George’s view that the value derived from land, as a natural endowment, should benefit the public rather than be monopolized by private individuals. This perspective led him to adopt George’s argument that the unearned income from land, or rent, should be taxed for the greater public good. Senador believed that this would address economic inequality and encourage landowners to either use their land productively or make it available for others to do so.

Where Senador slightly diverged from George was in his views on capital and the relationship between labor and capital. While George was more critical of capitalism, Senador advocated for cooperation between labor and capital as a means to enhance productivity and ensure economic stability. He argued that both labor and capital had legitimate claims to the wealth they generated, and the collaboration between these two forces was essential for tackling the problem of rent.

Senador’s endorsement of the single tax and free-market competition was fundamental to his vision of economic reform. He opposed tariffs and monopolies, believing them as barriers to fair competition that disproportionately harmed the broader population. Moreover, his moral perspective was deeply shaped by Christian values of justice, freedom, and fraternity. He believed that landowners who profited without contributing labor were morally obligated to share those benefits with society. This conviction underpinned his advocacy for land reform, aiming to free the rural proletariat from economic subjugation and to grant them access to land, thereby enabling genuine economic independence.

In sum, while Senador may have simplified some of George’s more complex theories, his writings reflect a genuine understanding of the core principles of Georgism. His emphasis on practical application, particularly within the Spainish context, highlights his efforts to promote social and economic justice through the implementation of George’s land tax and market reform ideas.

Subsequently, the focus shifts to the modifications that Senador introduced to Georgism, particularly regarding capitalism, ecological issues, and governmental intervention in agricultural matters.

Senador, initially aligned with Henry George’s ideas, considered himself as a defender of capitalism, rather than its opponent. He introduced the notion of “false capital”, distinguishing it from “true capital,” which he considered legitimate. Senador attributed the existence of monopolistic tendencies to the concentration of capital by those in power, rather than to the inherent nature of capital itself. Unlike Marx, who viewed capital as having a criminal tendency, Senador argued that only capital concentrated within corrupt systems could become harmful. In his early writings, Senador called for workers to collaborate with capitalists against rent-seekers, whom he identified as the real source of societal problems. However, by the 1920s, he recognized that even small capitalists had also become complicit in preserving the capitalist order. His views on capital subsequently evolved, becoming more nuanced, yet he continued to support George’s tax reforms.

As to the ecological issues, Senador diverged from George’s orthodoxy on ecological matters, exhibiting a deep respect for nature. Unlike George, who did not prioritize environmental concerns in his economic theory, Senador’s ecological views were a hallmark of his thinking. He viewed nature as inviolable, arguing that societal survival depended on adhering to natural laws. For Senador, natural resources, particularly Spain’s forests, needed to be preserved to prevent environmental disaster. His concern over the growing imbalance between human needs and natural resources in the context of industrialization placed him ahead of his time in terms of environmental consciousness. He believed in the inseparable connection between natural laws and economic prosperity, emphasizing that the disregard for these laws would inevitably lead to societal collapse.

In regard to Collectivist Agrarianism and Government Intervention, Senador further deviated from from George’s Georgism concerning the role of government in managing land and agriculture. While George advocated minimal government involvement, leaving land distribution to market forces, Senador favored a more active governmental role. He proposed a collectivist approach to agriculture, where municipalities should promote collaboration among farmers. He also advocated for reforms in the mortgage system and the establishment of national and municipal banks to support agricultural production. While George was wary of state control, particularly in land markets, Senador believed in selective government intervention, particularly for basic public services and infrastructure. He emphasized the importance of municipal autonomy and state involvement in areas like forest management and transportation, reflecting his commitment to intergrating ecological preservation with economic reform.

In summary, while Senador began as a disciple of George’s Georgism, his evolving views on capitalism, environmentalism, and governmental intervention led him to adapt and modify these doctrines, reflecting the unique social and economic challenges of early 20th-century Spain.

In conclusion, although Senador firmly upheld the single tax as the cornerstone of agrarian reform, he broadened Georgist principles by integrating collectivist and ecological dimensions that were particularly relevant to the Spanish context. . His nuanced views, shaped by the ideological context of his time, are frequently overlooked, leading to an undervaluation of his contributions.

×

La Economía Social y Solidaria es una construcción teórica y práctica que contradice determinados axiomas de la Teoría Económica clásica, y el Comercio Justo es una de sus manifestaciones. Los productores y consumidores que participan en el Comercio Justo muestran comportamientos que se guían más por motivaciones solidarias que por el deseo de maximizar su beneficio. El desarrollo del cooperativismo cafetalero que se inició en el estado mexicano de Chiapas a principios de los años 1980 es un ejemplo de ello. Sus ejes fueron la producción de café ecológico y su comercialización a través de los circuitos del Comercio Justo. Las cooperativas se articularon en una coordinadora estatal y se produjo un fenómeno solidario en virtud del cual las cooperativas ya existentes prestaban ayuda a las de nueva creación. De esta manera, los productores accedieron a mercados que valoraban su producción equitativa socialmente y respetuosa ambientalmente.

×

THE COFFEE COOPERATIVISM IN THE MEXICAN STATE OF CHIAPAS: AN EXAMPLE OF SOCIAL AND SOLIDARITY ECONOMY

The Social and Solidarity Economy refers to economic experiences and behaviours that, due to their rationality, logic and management tools, differ from both the public economics and the private capitalist economics. The Social and Solidarity Economy contrasts communitarianism, cooperation, responsible consumption and fair trade with individualism, competition, consumerism and free trade. Since the 1980s, a big network of solidarity was developed in Latin America between the popular sectors and indigenous cultures, linked to relations of solidarity and reciprocity embodied in social institutions deeply rooted in peasant and indigenous societies.

Among the social actors promoting Social and Solidarity Economy initiatives in Latin America, the main one was the Catholic Church, linked to the theological approach of Liberation Theology after the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1962-65). As a result of this ideology, the Catholic Church became involved in Fair Trade initiatives, starting with the pioneering experience of the Dutch priest Frans Vanderhoff in the Mexican state of Oaxaca and its immediate replication in the state of Chiapas, which made Mexico the world’s leading producer and exporter of organic and Fair Trade coffee, and Chiapas the leading producer of this type of coffee in Mexico.

In a global market where small producers competed at disadvantage, in order to survive they had to develop economic and social mechanisms such as Fair Trade, originally designed for democratically organized farmers. These cooperatives replicate the values ​​of solidarity and reciprocity that govern their communities. Problems within the organizations were solved through consensus, the specifically indigenous form of democracy.

The objective of this article is to examine this cooperative development in Chiapas since the early 1980s from the perspective of Social and Solidarity Economy principles. Our study begins at the 1980s, at a time when neoliberal policies undermined state intervention in the economy and suppressed international agreements that regulated raw material prices. We examine the growth of this cooperative movement while deregulating and liberalizing economic policies intensified. Special emphasis is placed on the process of collaboration and mutual assistance among the cooperatives, which faced technical and commercial demands that had not existed in previous decades, when the Mexican Coffee Institute (INMECAFE) was operational, coordinating and directing the entire production and commercial process.

This process of collective solidarity is studied, a process that has not received a thorough attention in the works that have been done on the subject, in which predominated case studies on a cooperative or a small group of them. The phenomenon is an outstanding example of how Social and Solidarity Economy clearly contradict some postulates of classical economic theory, such as that of Homo Economicus. It is also investigated its connection with the growth of fair trade, which in Europe was supported by consumers with solidarity motivations that valued the social and environmental conditions in which coffee had been produced, again an economic activity not guided by the maximization of benefit.

The methodology has been fundamentally qualitative. After a long stay in Chiapas in 2002 and the collaboration with one of the pioneers, longest and larger cooperatives, additional stays were carried out during the years 2007, 2016 and 2017 in order to collect data and interview the technical and managerial teams of different cooperatives. The long period between the first and last stay in Chiapas allowed to obtain a long perspective of the evolution of coffee producing cooperatives.

We also had the opportunity to interview Frans Vanderhoff, founder of the cooperative Union of Indigenous Communities of the Isthmus Region, in the state of Oaxaca, and a key figure in the promotion and boom of Fair Trade. The interviews were mostly semi-structured and methods from sociology and oral history were applied.

We found that the cooperatives that followed the strategy of direct sales implemented by UCIRI in Oaxaca in Chiapas felt united by fraternal ties, both among themselves and with the Oaxacan cooperative. These bonds were created by the common problems of low prices paid by intermediaries and also by facing an unknown world: processing and exporting to a demanding market like Europe. Furthermore, they were linked through the ties with the Catholic Church and through ethnic ties.

Assistance among cooperatives was crucial for the successful transition from conventional to organic coffee, a productive specialization that required technical changes in the production process and documentation management, as well as training in the logistics required for export. This helpful support was a key element in the expansion of the cooperative phenomenon.

Some vulnerabilities and strengths were found. A significant portion of cooperatives are small, and the fragmentation of producers across a large number of cooperatives makes them more vulnerable and less able to take advantage of economies of scale. Furthermore, there are frequent cases of unprofessional or fraudulent management, disagreements within technical and management teams that result in splits, and some of them often suffer financial difficulties due to their low capitalization and their heavy dependence on external financing for their investments, whether from public aid or international NGOs.

Among their strengths, it should be noted that cooperatives proved a great capacity to adapt to changing market circumstances and, in this 21st century, reacted efficiently to the growing demand for quality local coffee in the national market. They have also successfully addressed the increased quality demands of their customers. Many have professional cupping professionals or even cupping laboratories, which provide additional control over the final quality of the coffee in the cup. Some of them have promoted development projects for their members that go beyond coffee cultivation, a strategic action to continue maintaining the loyalty and identification of farmers with their organizations.

×

La Cooperativa Palo Alto es un caso paradigmático de la lucha comunitaria por la vivienda digna en el espacio urbano mexicano, que propuso innovaciones organizativas y de concepción del hábitat. Este trabajo de orientación histórica se enfoca en esta cooperativa de vivienda, ubicada en Cuajimalpa, ciudad de México, con dos objetivos: 1) elaborar una historia contextualizada de Palo Alto y 2) explicar las razones del desarrollo y la fortaleza de este proyecto popular, que se ha mantenido vigente pese a los embates del poder político y económico. Se concluye que en la gestación y consolidación de Palo Alto confluyeron las necesidades de migrantes desprotegidos, y la visión y acción de luchadores sociales, grupos independientes y gobiernos interesados en mejorar las condiciones de vida populares, que delinearon un tipo único de organización y lucha por la vivienda.

×

PALO ALTO COOPERATIVE: ORGANIZATION AND STRUGGLE FOR THE RIGHT TO DECENT HOUSING IN URBAN SPACE

This paper aims to study a paradigmatic example of the community struggle for dignified housing in the Mexican urban space, specifically, and in Latin America more generally. The case in question is that of the Palo Alto Cooperative, located on former mining land in the current Cuajimalpa district of Mexico City. Over the second half of the 20th century, this cooperative proposed and consolidated organizational forms and conceptions of urban habitat that were completely unprecedented in the country, where the cooperative housing model was unknown. This model had, however, been successfully implemented in other parts of Latin America. This paper has two main objectives: 1) to develop a contextualized history of Palo Alto, and 2) to explain the reasons behind the development and strength of this popular project, which, although no longer legally operational, continues to serve as a model of social organization and resistance against political and economic powers.

To achieve the stated objectives, a qualitative study with a primarily historical approach was conducted. This was based on the review, analysis, and systematic confrontation of diverse sources of information: legislative, statistical, testimonial, journalistic, and bibliographical, all directly related to Palo Alto and its historical, social, and economic context. From this corpus of documents, the trajectory of this emblematic housing cooperative was reconstructed, starting from its earliest origins in the 1930s to the present day, during which it has undertaken a new struggle against the real estate sector. The Palo Alto Housing Cooperative lacks an archive, which has been dispersed or lost. Over time, the different administrations of the Cooperative have fragmented and/or misplaced the documentary material, or part of it was handed over to the authorities to address the legal limbo in which the organization currently finds itself. For this reason, this study is also based on the recovery of memory through the words of its inhabitants. At the same time, the paper delves into its significance and legacy in defending the right to dignified housing in the urban spaces of Mexico and Latin America.

As this is a historical study, the results of this paper relate to a deeper characterization and understanding of the Palo Alto Cooperative in two central areas: 1) its historical trajectory, meaning the emergence and development of this housing cooperative as such, a process viewed from a broad and contextualized perspective, attentive to the structural and circumstantial conditions that made it possible, and 2) the organizational model used to defend the right to housing in the urban context, which underpinned this popular project.

Regarding the first area, it was found that the history of the Palo Alto Cooperative is directly tied to the phenomena of rapid modern urbanization and the mass migration from rural areas to cities that characterized much of Mexico and Latin America during the second half of the 20th century. During this period, nations in the subcontinent adopted capitalist industrialization as the predominant model of economic and social development, which required a large labor force. This demand was met by migrant workers from rural areas. In Mexico, this model soon showed its limitations in addressing the social demands of migrants settled on the urban periphery, which, combined with the government’s inability to confront the new situation, led to the impoverishment of the living conditions of millions of migrants and uncontrolled urban sprawl.

In response to this situation, these new and marginalized populations turned to organization and self-management to alter their reality, particularly regarding the lack of dignified housing. Palo Alto is paradigmatic for its process of organization and consolidation as a housing cooperative, a legal and social resistance model that had been unknown in Mexico until then. This is related to the second area mentioned. It can be noted that the gestation of this project involved the needs and initiative of a migrant group, mostly from the state of Michoacán, and the vision and actions of some social fighters, independent advisory groups, and government entities interested in improving the living conditions of the poorest communities. These factors resulted in a unique form of organization and struggle for dignified living in the growing urban sprawl, based on a mutual aid construction system and a cooperative property regime, which guaranteed equal access to dignified housing in a modern, functional, and serviced neighborhood. At the same time, this arrangement protected the housing complex from external pressures and private interests, a crucial aspect given the location of Palo Alto in one of the highest-value areas of the country, which helps explain the longevity of this housing cooperative, whose legacy as a model of social resistance remains relevant.

On the other hand, this article is a case study, emphasizing the particularities of the Palo Alto Cooperative, and excludes a detailed analysis of the similarities, beyond the structural and circumstantial conditions, it may share with other similar projects for the right to dignified housing in Mexico and Latin America. Secondly, since the paper adopts an explicitly historical approach, it does not delve into the detailed implications of this organizational model on the economic and social lives of Palo Alto’s residents, an aspect that would be more suitable for a quantitative study.

Historical studies are a useful tool for recovering significant references that contribute to a better understanding of present realities, which can be translated into the development of more effective actions and measures to address social issues. In this sense, this paper studies the case of Palo Alto, demonstrating the relevance of the housing cooperative organizational model for the development and consolidation of this project in the fight for dignified housing in the urban space. Beyond the specific contributions to the historical understanding of Palo Alto, it is hoped that this study will draw attention to its significance in complementing and contrasting knowledge in social economics and related disciplines, as well as bringing the cooperative urban habitat model into academic and public debate. Although this model is now legally inoperative in Mexico, it still offers valuable lessons for the ongoing struggle for dignified housing in the context of accelerated gentrification.

×

El objetivo central del artículo es dar cuenta de los antecedentes históricos, sociales, económicos y políticos que desembocan en la promulgación de la primera Ley General de Cooperativas de Chile el año 1924. La hipótesis principal que orienta el artículo y la investigación que la respalda es que existen una serie factores que se han llegado a articular para que finalmente las autoridades públicas y políticas del país tomaran la decisión de legislar sobre el modelo cooperativo.
La metodología empleada ha sido fundamentalmente la recopilación, análisis y sistematización de documentación histórica como también la revisión de distintos cuerpos legales asociados a la temática cooperativa.
La principal conclusión a que se llega con el desarrollo del estudio es que para que se concretara la promulgación de la primera legislación cooperativa en Chile, confluyeron diversas fuerzas sociales y políticas, que a través de procesos de generación de cooperativas y otras formas propias de la economía social como son las mutuales y las asociaciones, fueron progresivamente ganando un arraigo entre distintos actores sociales y políticos del país desde mediados del siglo XIX.

×

THE SLOW PATH TO THE FIRST GENERAL LAW OF COOPERATIVES IN CHILE, 1863-1925

This article explores the conceptual framework and historical development of the cooperative business model, with a specific focus on its emergence and early stages in Chile (1863–1925). The study is divided into two main sections: (1) the definition and characterization of the cooperative business model, and (2) the social history of Chile within the context of the worker-popular movement in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The modern cooperative movement traces its origins to the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers (1844, England), considered the first successful cooperative enterprise. The Rochdale principles -later revised by the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA)- established foundational values such as voluntary membership, democratic control, economic participation, autonomy, education, cooperation among cooperatives, and community commitment.

Over 170 years, cooperatives have expanded globally, with 2.7 million cooperatives and 1.2 billion members worldwide (EURICSE, 2023). The model has been analyzed from various theoretical perspectives -economic, political, and social- reflecting its adaptability to different historical and ideological contexts. Legal frameworks have also evolved, as seen in works like the International Handbook of Cooperative Law (Cracogna et al., 2013) and recent studies on cooperative legislation (Macías Ruano, 2023).

Chilean historiography initially focused on political and military narratives but later shifted toward social history, emphasizing labor movements, industrialization, and urbanization. Early historians like Diego Barros Arana and Francisco Antonio Encina laid the groundwork, while later scholars such as Jorge Barría, Julio Pinto Vallejos, and Hernán Ramírez Necochea examined worker movements.

Key figures like Gabriel Salazar and Sergio Grez highlighted self-organization through mutual aid societies, cooperatives, and philanthropic organizations. The “social question” (Grez, 1995) emerged as a central debate, addressing workers’ struggles for housing, healthcare, and labor rights, culminating in legislative reforms in the early 20th century.

Chilean cooperativism emerged as an imported European model, initially linked to labor movements and immigrant communities (German, Spanish, Italian). Early cooperatives were heterogeneous, involving workers, artisans, and later middle-class employees and small farmers.

The first recorded cooperatives (1863) were worker cooperatives formed by shoemakers and tailors in Santiago, promoted by mathematician Ramón Picarte, who also advocated for Fourierist-inspired phalansteries. Other key figures included Fermín Vivaceta, who promoted cooperative consumption, and Luis Emilio Recabarren, a socialist leader who saw cooperatives as tools for worker emancipation.

By the early 20th century, political figures across the spectrum -from conservative Juan Enrique Concha to radical Armando Quezada Acharán-endorsed cooperatives as part of broader social reform efforts. However, early cooperatives lacked a dedicated legal framework, operating under commercial or civil society statutes.

The Law No. 4,058 (1924) and subsequent Decree Law No. 700 (1925) established Chile’s first cooperative legislation. Key aspects included: Definition, cooperatives as societies with unlimited members, variable capital, and limited liability; regulation, governance structures (General Assembly, Board of Directors, oversight bodies); fiscal benefits, tax exemptions and municipal discounts; institutional oversight, assigned to the Office of Labor (later the Ministry of Hygiene and Social Welfare).

The law’s rapid passage was influenced by Chile’s political crisis (1924–1925), which accelerated social reforms, including labor rights and cooperative legislation.

This study highlights the transnational roots of Chilean cooperativism, its ties to labor movements, and the legislative milestones that shaped its development. The early cooperative movement reflected broader struggles for social justice, economic democracy, and state reform, laying the groundwork for future expansions in the 20th century.

×

En el presente artículo, se abordará el contexto en que surgen en Chile las sociedades colectivas concebidas bajo los caracteres de asociaciones cooperativas. Luego, considerando que el modelo demostró una formula distinta de gobernanza –capaz de satisfacer necesidades productivas y, al mismo tiempo, aportar un sello colaborativo-, desde ya hace más de un siglo, específicamente en el año 1924, se promulgo en Chile la Ley n°4.058, la cual corresponde al primer marco normativo de las sociedades cooperativas.
A partir de la publicación de la ley, se identificarán las distintas modificaciones legales, que, conllevaron a refundir y sistematizar el derecho cooperativo chileno con los principios y valores del derecho cooperativo internacional. En este camino, y, definida su naturaleza, la regulación cooperativa se logró consolidar en el ordenamiento jurídico chileno como una disciplina autónoma.
Es así, que, los fecundos resultados que han experimentados las cooperativas a partir de la estabilidad de su regulación, les han permitido posicionarse como agentes relevantes en el desarrollo social y económico del país.

×

A CENTURY OF CHILEAN COOPERATIVE LAW: CONTEXT AND REGULATION

Cooperatives as a form of business organization emerged after the Industrial Revolution, during a period marked by the mechanization of production, which simultaneously led to a decline in the quality of life for the working class. In this unstable environment, motivated by the inherent right to associate, Rodríguez (1968) illustrates that the modern cooperative movement arose from established popular movements, seeking to react and defend against the conditions created by the evolution of the economy and the Industrial Revolution. As a result, the Rochdale Pioneers in 1844 were called upon to create a trade model based on solidarity and mutual aid, demonstrating from its inception to be a viable and sustainable alternative to existing corporate structures. This associative formula, with mutualistic nuances, allowed the founders to reframe their ideas, thereby encouraging broader adoption.

Thus, the statutes of the first cooperative laid the foundation for its operations, defining its objectives and becoming the cornerstone of its functionality. The principles established by its founders distinguished this emerging model from others, evolving from mere theoretical concepts into universal and enduring characteristics. Above all, they provided stability and strengthened its institutional framework. Following this idea, we have seen how these qualities, rooted in its principles, have had the great virtue of synthesizing the heterogeneous conditions it maintains compared to other market actors (Jaramillo, 2012).

The success of the first associations called cooperatives, which sought to replicate the model established by the Rochdale cooperative, paved the way for their systematic expansion, prompting regulatory efforts for their creation and operation. These generated various dialogues aimed at organizing and promoting the cooperative movement, which, as mentioned, understood and emphasized as a foundational element that these associations should be guided by principles and values justifying their autonomy, ultimately giving rise to Cooperative Law as an independent legal discipline.

Thus, the law —as a social phenomenon— emerged to regulate these collective groups. As Cracogna explains, their unique associative nature prevented their categorization under traditional legal frameworks but demanded a specialized legal structure, giving rise to an autonomous branch of law rooted in the sociological phenomenon of cooperation.

Given the expansion of cooperatives in Europe, this movement soon reached Latin America. In the case of Chile, the cooperative movement was formed and consolidated thanks to the influence of European migrants, which complemented and strengthened the already existing mutualist doctrine. Works such as those by Salas (1909), Cocio (1918), and Ochagavía (1921) document that by the late 19th century, various cooperatives already existed in the country. However, lacking specific regulation, they had to operate as de facto associations or under the framework of joint-stock or collective societies, which facilitated their misuse by those pursuing non-cooperative objectives.

Particularly, as described by Rodríguez (1968), prior to cooperatives, in 1853, the first mutualist society known as the “Typographical Society” was established, laying the groundwork for the idea that collective problems in the country could be addressed through mutual aid. This encouraged discussions and the promotion of its purposes and structure.

Continuing, there is consensus that the first associations organized under the cooperative model in Chile were created in 1887 in the city of Valparaíso (a port) through the labor cooperatives known as “Valparaíso” and “Esmeralda.” From then on, various associations identifying as cooperatives began to emerge, but without their own regulatory framework, which, as some authors explain, in certain cases led to disproportionate use deviating from cooperative purposes.

Later, starting in 1918, the first legislative efforts began in Congress to recognize an autonomous regulation for this new corporate model (agricultural cooperatives). Given the need for regulation and the period of political instability Chile was experiencing, this allowed the first Cooperative Law No. 4.058 to be promulgated on September 30, 1924, among various social laws published to address popular demands. According to Román (1990), this legal recognition granted cooperatives legal personality, enabling them to act as legal entities and ensuring the rights and obligations of their members.

As context, once cooperative societies were recognized as legal entities in the Chilean legal system (1924), their regulation became subject to various legal modifications, which began the following year with Decree-Law No. 700 of 1925 “On Cooperative Societies”; then in 1929 with Law No. 4.531 on “Agricultural Cooperatives”; in 1932 with Decree-Law No. 669, which “Amends Decree-Law No. 700 of 1925 on Cooperative Societies”; in February 1933 with Decree No. 596 “Single Text of the Decree-Laws on Cooperative Societies”; in 1933, with the publication of Decree No. 506 of the Ministry of Labor, which “Approves the Regulations for the Application of the Cooperative Societies Law”; in 1936, with Decree No. 790, which “Approves the Regulations on Cooperative Societies”; in 1942, “Amending Article No. 138 of the General Regulations on Cooperative Societies (Decree No. 790 of 1936)”; later, by Decree No. 550 of 1947, which “Amends the Regulations of the Law on Cooperative Societies”; by Decree with Force of Law (DFL) No. 326 of June 6, 1960, which “Establishes Provisions Relating to Cooperatives”; subsequently, entering a period of peak development, in 1963, when Decree 20 DFL 20 came into force, which “Sets the Consolidated, Updated, and Systematized Text of Decree with Force of Law No. 326 of 1960 on Cooperatives”; and, under a de facto government, in 1978, when Decree No. 502 was published, establishing the consolidated, coordinated, and systematized text of the Cooperative Law. All these modifications allowed the transition from municipal oversight to state supervision, laid the groundwork for the recognition and regulation of reserves, shares, and their institutional framework, among other aspects, and, above all, from the beginning to the current regulation, ensured that cooperatives were created based on cooperative principles and values.

As stated, the cooperative law underwent subsequent modifications, gradually incorporating the Rochdale Principles. Despite challenges, such as a de facto government, Chile ultimately established the General Cooperative Law (LGC) on February 17, 2004 (Decree No. 5), in force to this day and amended 13 times, the last on December 30, 2023. Additionally, as of the date of this submission (2024), a law is in advanced legislative processing that will grant savings and credit cooperatives the possibility to participate in the pension fund administrator market.

From a historical context, cooperatives flourished and multiplied due to the prominence they gained from the implementation of Agrarian Reform in Chile, which began under President Jorge Alessandri Rodríguez (Law No. 15.020 of 1962), expanded under the governments of Eduardo Frei Montalva (Law No. 16.640 of 1967) and Salvador Allende Gossens, allowing the fragmentation of land and positioning cooperatives as basic productive units. This peak of the sector, although initially sustained after the 1973 coup d’état and the establishment of a military regime, eventually declined over time with the implementation of new economic policies, directly impacting the sector’s downturn, as seen in the number of cooperatives that emerged between 1973 and 1990.

Today, cooperatives are supervised by the Division of Associativity and Cooperatives of the Ministry of Economy, Development, and Tourism. Additionally, the National Institute of Associativity and Cooperativism (INAC), created in 2023, promotes their development through public-private collaboration.

Given the above and the need to understand the regulatory evolution of each institution, in the case of cooperatives, as well as other entities operating in the market, there is an imperative to create and operate under specific regulations that foster their growth and stability, requiring constant updates to their legal frameworks. Thus, cooperatives, in particular, have demonstrated their ability to adapt to continuous changes and endogenous factors impacting their environment. Therefore, as this article will explain, from the first cooperative regulation to its subsequent modifications—which are in constant adjustment—they have consolidated their strengths and reduced weaknesses in their structure, highlighting the need for ongoing study.
In conclusion, the legal recognition of cooperatives as legal entities has allowed Chile to harmonize its regulatory framework with international cooperative principles, fostering a resilient and balanced economic model. A century of regulatory stability has solidified cooperatives as key players in socioeconomic development, demonstrating their enduring relevance.

×

El presente trabajo analiza jurídicamente la socio-historia del movimiento cooperativo en Euskal Herria, realizando un estudio diacrónico que divide su desarrollo en cuatro ciclos. El objetivo principal es examinar la dimensión jurídica de esta Socio-Historia, prestando especial atención a la influencia del movimiento cooperativo en la legislación y en el impulso normativo a nuevas realidades cooperativas. Para ello, hemos utilizado una metodología que parte de un acercamiento pluridisciplinar. El artículo concluye que la influencia normativa ha sido clave en la transición del cooperativismo hacia un nuevo ciclo socio-histórico. Esta investigación es fundamental para aportar una nueva dimensión temporal y territorial al estudio del Derecho Cooperativo, contextualizando la experiencia cooperativa de Mondragón en el contexto general del movimiento cooperativo vasco.

×

A LEGAL APPROACH OF THE SOCIO-HISTORY OF COOPERATIVISM IN THE BASQUE COUNTRY

Basque cooperativism is a dynamic economic movement with a long-standing history. Our study proposes a synchronic analysis dividing its path into four socio-historical cycles, analyzing the Basque Country (Euskal Herria, in basque) as a two-state territory that constitutes a single sociological reality. To achieve this, a socio-historical proposal aligned with the main contributions in this field has been developed. Furthermore, we believe that territory can be an analytical instrument, understood as a “méso”-economic space. Our qualitative methodology is based on the revision of regulations and bibliographic sources, which have been examined following a critical analysis of the discourse.

The first cycle, Pre-war Cooperativism (1870-1945), is where the first cooperatives emerged. Basque cooperativism arose in the working-class areas of Bizkaia because of industrialization. Immediately, three agents took the lead the cycle: The Catholic Church founded agricultural and credit unions in the rural areas of Navarre and the French Basque Country; Socialists, created consumer cooperatives as part of their political action and, lastly, Basque nationalism, promoted a certain multidimensional cooperativism that included, among others, consumer cooperatives, credit unions and agriculture cooperatives.

Second, the Necessity Cooperativism (1945-1975) arose because of the armed conflicts that impact de Basque Country. The cooperative restitution stands out by the differences between each territorial reality. Furthermore, in this cycle, the Mondragon Experience arose creating communitarian projects among the Basque workers. Mondragon was not the unique cooperative experience, but it was the most economically successful one.

Political and economic changes around 1975 led to Welfare Cooperativism (1975-2000). In this cycle cooperativism takes the main market positions, generating wealth to large masses of the Basque population, especially from rural areas. Mondragon as other popular initiatives was progressively institutionalized, and the first symptoms of organizational change appeared (casual workers force, creation of the subsidiaries…). In this cycle, a movement of cooperatives inspired by Mondragon emerges in the French Basque Country to support the territorial endogenous development.

The social and economical transformations of the country alongside with the changes of the cooperative movement leads us to talk about the emergence of a new cycle. New cooperatives are smaller in size, mostly from the sector services and created in urban areas. The Mondragon model of big industrial cooperative based in a rural area is consolidated but not replicated. However, there are similar dynamics among the new cooperatives that enables them to take part in Social and Solidary Economy networks.
The socio-historical path presented has a juridical dimension. We propose two complementary hypotheses. Firstly, dynamic cooperativism has succeeded in influencing the legislator to give normative form to new realities, and secondly, this legal framework has enabled cooperativism to shape new socio-legal realities. These bidirectional relationship between cooperativism and Laws has not been analyzed in our temporal and territorial dimensions. This article aims to fill this gap by offering a juridical approach of the socio-history of cooperativism in the Basque country.

The limitations of the research reside in the need to analyse the two-states administrative situation of our socio-historical reality. This element is also the source of interest in the analysis from a “méso”-economic perspective. Despite this limitation, this work shows the mutual influence between the social, political, and religious actors in a cross-border cooperative activity. The cooperativism was born to respond to different social needs. These necessities have been evolving and, accordingly, the cooperatives are constantly adjusting to market needs. Likewise, the legislator, whether the state or the regional one, has been adapting its legal framework to the cooperative evolution. The other limitation is the asystematicity of the Basque country cooperative Law, in which different juridical orders are overlayed, not always harmoniously. This shows an explicit the necessity to continue the academic study about this question.

The result of this work has a double dimension. On the one side, we can see the influence of the cooperative movement over the law, and, on the other, how the regulations have shaped the movement. In a sequential way, we find at the first cycle, the pre-war one, that the cooperative regulation is limited to mere secondary references. Cooperatives had a relative freedom until the first State Cooperative Acts. These laws arrived in clearly differentiated political moments: In Spain in 1931 although it was unapplied due to the Civil war and in France in 1945 when the Law was approved in a National Reconstruction movement. The objective was also differentiated because the Spanish dictature aimed to control de cooperative movement while the French legislator seeked economic recovery.

At the second cycle, the Necessity Cooperativism, we can find the birth of the Mondragon Experience, the cooperative experience that has most influenced the rest of the movement and cooperative law. Even so, the Spanish legislator has demonstrated no logic in favor of codification and much less of the democratization of the movement. In the French case, new agrarian cooperatives came into existence through the institutional impulse while a new generation was beginning to look towards Mondragon.

At the Welfare Cycle, the passing of the Spanish regional regulations (autonómicas and forales ones) transformed the Cooperative Law. The role of Mondragon was especially intense because its evolution generated part of the successive legal reforms. Those dynamics were especially clear at the Euskadi Cooperative Laws of 1993 and 2019.

A new normative stage was opened in the 21st century. The introduction of SCIC (Sociétés Coopératives d’Intérêt Collectif) in France represented a change in trend into the new socio-historical cycle. In this cycle, the cooperative norms are distributed in multiple-levels (European, State and Regional systems) and they are not well-harmonized. Furthermore, this Law sector has become particularized as the Basque cooperative movement has changed. The Social and Solidarity Economy paradigm apparition, and its respective laws, represents a milestone in this phenomenon.

Among our principal conclusions we may say that in the new socio-historical cycle the relation of influence between regulation and cooperativism has been reversed. Although Basque cooperativism has so far marked the pace of normative development, the legislator now regulates and shapes the reality of a pluralistic and diverse cooperative model. In fact, the new cooperatives form a “less compact mass” of cooperatives than Mondragon. Moreover, the advent of new paradigms such as the SSE in regulatory competition complicates the work of the legislator. Successive rules of the “new cycle” make us possible to verify that this relationship has been reversed and see how these cooperatives take the forms defined in this multi-level regulatory system. This reinforces our previous research, confirming that the new socio-historical cycle of cooperativism in the Basque Country also has a regulatory framework corresponding to this new stage.

×

El objetivo del artículo es mostrar una faceta poco conocida del exilio español en México, su participación en el desarrollo industrial y económico del país que les brindó asilo cuando tuvieron que dejar España a causa de la Guerra Civil. Lo anterior se analiza a través de la actividad profesional de Antonio Sacristán Colás, jurista, catedrático universitario, defensor y colaborador de la Segunda República, en cuyo gobierno desempeñó importantes funciones, entre ellas la de subsecretario de Hacienda y otros encargos relacionados con cuestiones bancarias. Esta experiencia resultó de utilidad en México cuando se creó la Sociedad Mexicana de Crédito Industrial, financiera en la que tuvo un papel trascendental.

×

THE CONTRIBUTION OF ANTONIO SACRISTÁN COLÁS TO THE MEXICAN SOCIETY OF INDUSTRIAL CREDIT

The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) caused the massive exile of participants on the losing side. Thousands of people fled to the Americas and attempted to remake their lives there. The most significant group settled in Mexico, over 20,000 exiles, among them numerous intellectuals, professionals in many fields, artists, scientists, politicians, and university professors. This latter sector included Antonio Sacristán Colás, a legal scholar who had earned the title catedrático in Spain, the highest academic position in that university system, and also held high-level positions in both the government of the Second Republic and the private sector.

Antonio Sacristán Colás was born in Madrid on October 9, 1902, “the legitimate son of the mercantile professor Antonio Sacristán y Zavala and Dolores Colás y Arias” (Puyol, 2021). He was raised in a liberal milieu, for “His father was a Director of a chain of leftist newspapers: El Liberal and El Heraldo, among others” (Hernández, 1978:367). In 1932, he wed Dolores Roy Gonzalo and they had four children: Dolores and Josefa (born in Madrid); Antonio (born in Paris); and Emilio (born in Mexico), all of whom bore the surnames Sacristán Roy.

Sacristán Colás’ political participation in favor of the Second Spanish Republic (1931-1939) meant that any attempt to consolidate a professional career in Spain entailed great risks; hence he opted to continue those efforts in exile in Mexico, though he would not have the same level of participation that he could have enjoyed in his home country. Indeed, in the view of this stolid Republican, Spanish exiles in Mexico were not able to wield any important influence, only perhaps temporarily and in certain aspects, but not globally [or] integrally” (Hernández, 1978:378). We must remember, in this regard, that foreign nationals could not participate in politics in Mexico.

At the moment of Sacristán’s arrival, the country was governed by the 1917 Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico, a carta magna which established, in Article 33, that “[…] the Executive [branch] of the Union shall have the exclusive faculty to force any foreign person whose presence it deems inconvenient to abandon the national territory, immediately and with no need for a prior trial. Foreign nationals cannot involve themselves in any way in the political affairs of the country”. Article 33 “is of great importance for understanding one of the limitations that foreigners of any nationality face in Mexico, due to its constitutional prohibition on political participation” (Martínez, 2020a:166). Without doubt, that interdiction deeply affected the Spanish Republicans, the vast majority of whom were characterized by their political activism. In their country of asylum, however, they had to limit their acts because they could be summarily expelled from its lands.

Those political limitations did not, however, impede Republican jurists in Mexico, including Sacristán Colás, from leaving an important legacy in fields like education, legislative consultancy, the creation of laws, government counsel, work in legal offices, or as advisers to important private companies. This article does not deal with those contributions because extensive works exist on the exiles’ activities in these spheres and provide valuable information on the tireless labors they carried out after arriving in Mexico. Instead, I center attention on a little-studied aspect of these exiles; namely, their participation in activities that fomented the productive and economic development of the country where they sought refuge. Thus, my analysis is based on the contributions of Antonio Sacristán Colás in the decades following the end of the presidential period of General Lázaro Cárdenas (1934-1940).

Sacristán was first exiled in France before going to Mexico, where he lived until the end of his days. He entered Mexican territory through Nuevo Laredo, in the state of Tamaulipas, on June 1 st, 1939. Once in his country of exile, he pursued activities in two domains: university education and banking. Regarding his labors as a professor, we see him collaborating in the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) and the Universidad Anáhuac, where he taught generations of economists. Although his activity as a professor certainly was certainly noteworthy, here I focus on another facet of his career: as a banker, due to the important role he played in the development of the country where he lived his exile.

My objective in this article is to document Sacristán’s profesional experience upon settling in Mexico, and the activities he conducted while there. Special attention is placed on his role in the Sociedad Mexicana de Crédito Industrial (Mexican Society of Industrial Credit). The fundamental raison d´être of the Mexicana de Crédito –as it was commonly known– was to promote the development of Mexican production, “through dedication to the study, planning, establishment, and promotion of new industries and the development of existing ones”, and to strategically place the actions and obligations of companies by opening new markets. It is among these proposals that we perceive another outstanding feature of Sacristán’s work: servicing long-term credits that provided existing enterprises with complementary capital (Cárdenas et al., 1992:99). The importance of that financial society in the economic life of Mexico was due, among other factors, to the fact that it fostered applying systematic savings and effectively fomented industrial development. It was thanks to the Sociedad that numerous new industries arose that today, at several decades of distance, are among the most prominent enterprises in the country.
The article includes a brief biographical note on Sacristán’s academic training in Spain, a review of his professional activities, and an effort to relate those two facets to his participation in the Sociedad Mexicana de Crédito Industrial.

This study is based on specialized bibliography on the topic and documentation held in historical archives, following the chronological order of the events described. The documental repositories consulted include the following: Archivo General de la Nación, Archivo Histórico de the Biblioteca Nacional de Antropología e Historia “Eusebio Dávalos Hurtado”, Archivo Histórico de la Dirección General de Personal de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, and Biblioteca del Ateneo Español de México.

×

Este trabajo examina la evolución normativa y estructural de las cajas de ahorros en España, desde su configuración histórica como fundaciones de carácter benéfico-social hasta su desaparición como operadores financieros autónomos tras las reformas de 2010 y 2013. A través del marco jurídico, la jurisprudencia constitucional y la doctrina, se analiza la bancarización forzada y la conversión en fundaciones bancarias sin operativa financiera, lo que quebró los principios tradicionales de la economía social. También se estudia la situación jurídica de los Montes de Piedad y su falta de estatuto propio. Se sostiene que el desmantelamiento del modelo de caja no era jurídicamente inevitable y se proponen alternativas normativas para recuperar entidades financieras sin ánimo de lucro y con finalidad social y territorial, alineadas con el pluralismo institucional europeo. La investigación concluye que es viable un régimen para entidades de crédito orientadas al interés general, siempre que se preserve su especificidad mediante gobernanza y supervisión adecuadas.

×

THE CRISIS OF SPANISH SAVINGS BANKS: LEGAL CAUSES, INSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION AND CHALLENGES FOR THE SOCIAL ECONOMY

This article offers a detailed legal and institutional analysis of Spanish savings banks (cajas de ahorros), tracing their origins, juridical nature, social mission, governance evolution, and eventual dismantling as autonomous financial institutions. It situates their trajectory within the broader framework of the social economy, examining the impact of their transformation into banking foundations after the 2008 financial crisis and the legislative reforms of 2010 and 2013. It argues that the disappearance of the cajas was neither legally inevitable nor economically necessary, but the result of failures in governance and supervision that undermined their foundational and territorial identity.

Historically, the cajas embodied a unique institutional model, characterized by their foundational legal form, social purpose, and absence of shareholders. Emerging in the 19th century to promote savings and inclusion, often linked to the Montes de Piedad, they became vehicles for local development, redistributing surpluses through obra social programs. The 1933 Estatuto de las Cajas de Ahorro codified their private, non-profit status, institutionalizing principles of patrimonial affectation to the general interest, non-appropriability of surpluses, and governance by collective representation.

Throughout the 20th century, the cajas played a pivotal role in Spain’s financial system. They mobilized household savings, financed underbanked sectors and public projects, and supported cultural, educational, and social initiatives. The post-Franco reforms of the 1970s and the LORCA (1985) modernized their governance, introducing representation of depositors, employees, founders, and local authorities. Yet the LORCA entrenched political influence, as regional governments gained control over appointments and strategic decisions, weakening neutrality and professionalism.

The liberalization and Europeanization of financial markets in the 1990s and 2000s exposed institutional weaknesses. EU prudential rules designed for shareholder-owned banks imposed uniform capital, governance, and disclosure standards, ignoring the non-profit nature of the cajas. This mismatch left them vulnerable, while their governance —prone to political capture and lacking expertise— failed to check risky strategies and overexposure to real estate. The 2008 crisis exposed these flaws, triggering heavy losses and systemic risk.

In response, Spain enacted RDL 11/2010 and the 2013 Ley de Cajas de Ahorros y Fundaciones Bancarias. These reforms imposed stringent capitalization and governance requirements, forced large cajas to transfer banking operations to commercial banks, and transformed them into banking foundations, stripped of financial operational capacity and limited to holding bank shares. Thus, the cajas ceased to function as active, territorially embedded social economy actors, while their obra social became dependent on the profitability of their banking participations, severing the direct link between finance and community benefit.

Methodologically, the article combines juridical-positive analysis with critical and comparative perspectives. It explores debates over the public or private nature of the cajas, their inclusion in the social economy under Spanish Law 5/2011 and EU policy, and constitutional principles of institutional pluralism and general interest. Jurisprudence from the Spanish Supreme and Constitutional Courts is discussed, showing recognition of the cajas as sui generis entities straddling public and private spheres, yet lacking coherent legal protection.

A key thesis is that dismantling the cajas was not inevitable. Comparative examples show that hybrid financial institutions have survived elsewhere as part of the social economy. In Germany, Sparkassen operate as publicly owned, territorially focused banks under a public mandate for development and inclusion. France retains mutualist and cooperative banks within its social and solidarity economy, reinforced by the 2014 Loi ESS. These models demonstrate that professional governance, solvency, and social purpose can coexist.

The article also examines the fate of the Montes de Piedad, historically complementing the cajas by providing non-profit pawn lending to vulnerable groups. Their absorption into banking foundations has eroded their visibility and autonomy, despite the continued relevance of their mission. The absence of a specific legal framework for the Montes reflects wider neglect of historical social finance institutions.

The transformation into banking foundations carries further institutional consequences. While these entities preserve legal ownership of bank shares, they lack democratic governance, territorial focus, and operational capacity. Their boards are professionalized but exclude depositors, employees, and communities. As such, the foundations fail to meet social economy criteria: democratic governance, person-centered management, reinvestment of surpluses, and local embeddedness.

The article proposes reconstructing a legal regime for non-profit financial entities in Spain. A hybrid institutional form should combine professional governance, prudent supervision, and efficiency with general-interest principles, democratic participation, and territorial rootedness. Key elements would include:

(a) Non-appropriability of surpluses;
(b) Stakeholder representation in governance;
(c) Proportionate solvency and governance standards;
(d) Mandatory allocation of surpluses to social investment locally.
These proposals align with EU priorities on financial diversity and social economy actors as drivers of resilience, sustainability, and cohesion. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), in Opinion SOC/371, highlighted the stabilizing and inclusive role of non-profit financial entities and recommended supportive legal frameworks.

The conclusion emphasizes that eliminating the cajas reflected regulatory failings and a lack of political commitment to institutional diversity. Their experience illustrates how poor governance and regulatory convergence can undermine viable social economy actors. Restoring such models requires forward-looking legal design balancing efficiency and inclusion.

By placing the Spanish case in a European context, the article shows that integrating socially oriented, territorially rooted financial entities into modern financial systems is feasible and desirable. Doing so would strengthen pluralism, enhance social cohesion, and promote inclusion in line with constitutional principles and European values.

×

En este artículo se acude a los postulados de Vladimir Ilich Ulianov Lenin respecto del cooperativismo para intentar poner de manifiesto si éstos representaron una fuente de inspiración para lo que representó posteriormente este movimiento en la Unión Soviética (URSS). Lenin teorizó sobre el modelo de empresa de economía social, teniendo en cuenta los trabajos de Marx y Engels, y ello sirvió de base teórica en la constitución de cooperativas en la URSS, algo que, según la hipótesis de que se parte en el artículo, se desvirtuó con la llegada de Stalin al poder. En el artículo se revisan diferentes artículos en los que Lenin se posicionó acerca del cooperativismo, defendiéndolo, así como diversos posicionamientos de Marx, Engels, Trotsky y Stalin. El impulso que experimentaron las cooperativas en los primeros años de la URSS, bajo el liderazgo de Lenin, cambió después con Stalin en el poder, optándose por el control estatal. Para evidenciar este hecho, se aborda la evolución del modelo cooperativo en la URSS.

×

LENIN AS A SOURCE OF INSPIRATION FOR COOPERATIVISM IN THE USSR

This article examines various postulates of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin regarding cooperativism, written in numerous works by the Russian revolutionary and theorist. Reference is made to what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had previously explained in some of their works, which inspired Lenin himself. This article also examines some of the works of Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin on the subject. All of them positioned themselves, in one way or another, in favor of the cooperative model, but with different degrees of intensity. In Lenin’s case, his defense was clear, as evidenced in some of his works, and when he came to power in the USSR, he worked to promote cooperatives as a fundamental part of the Soviet production model. Although Stalin had also positioned himself in favor of this type of social economy entity years before, when he held power he opted for state control, and the autonomy of cooperatives was nonexistent. This article provides evidence of this fact.

The emergence of the cooperative and communist movements is contemporary in nature. There is academic consensus that the origin of modern cooperativism lies in the creation of the “Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers,” a cooperative founded in 1844 by 28 workers in Rochdale, England, commonly known as the “Rochdale Pioneers.” In those years, the labour movement was in full swing, as made evident by the publication of the Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Engels in 1848, just four years after the founding of the Rochdale cooperative. Marx and Engels, first Marx, and later Lenin, addressed the issue of cooperativism in their works and explained the role they believed it should play in the transformation of society. Other Marxist authors followed suit.

This paper proposes the following hypothesis as a starting point: the postulates formulated regarding cooperativism by Lenin, which in turn drew on those of Marx and Engels, were decisive in the development of cooperatives in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Through an analysis of various articles by Lenin and also with reference to direct sources from Marx and Engels, as well as Trotsky, this paper will link the process of establishing cooperatives in the USSR. The hypothesis is that the measures promoted in the country under Lenin’s leadership were fundamental to the development of cooperativism, and that this changed with the death of the revolutionary leader and the rise to power of his successor, Stalin, who opted for a model based on strict state control of cooperatives, with no room for self-management. The article also analyses various works by Stalin on this model of social economy.

In addition to the works of Marx and Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, the article also addresses Stalin’s theoretical postulates on cooperativism. After analysing the writings of these authors, the process of cooperative creation in the USSR will be examined, focusing particularly on the kolkhoz model.
The article notes that Marx and Engels defended cooperativism in different works. For these authors, the truly important thing was to achieve state power, eliminate the existing state of affairs, and build a new classless society—that is, to achieve socialism. For them, cooperatives alone would be powerless and would require the attainment of higher goals, although they could represent an element of usefulness until these goals were fully achieved.

Regarding Lenin, he defended cooperativism as an essential business organization model for the Soviet Union. Once state power was achieved following the October Revolution of 1917, for Lenin, cooperatives could represent an extraordinary model for organizing peasants in developing their activity of exploiting the land, which had been collectivized. The main objective, the highest goal, was the achievement of socialism, and for this, cooperatives could act as a useful tool. Therefore, while Lenin led the USSR, he firmly supported cooperatives, and they played a very important role in the process of land collectivization, enjoying a certain degree of autonomy.

Trotsky also favoured the cooperative model, but, as in the case of the authors cited above, its development needed to be accompanied by a revolutionary transformation to achieve socialism—something which had become far removed from the postulates that advocated gradual reformism. Trotsky was highly critical of the Stalinist drift in the USSR, along with the development of cooperativism as well.

Under Stalin, although cooperatives continued to grow, the model became completely different from that advocated and practiced by Lenin. Thus, despite the fact that the new Soviet leader had defended the role of cooperatives in socialism in his writings and speeches, in practice, absolute state control was exercised over them, which meant that their autonomy and independence ceased to exist. Therefore, to speak of cooperativism per se in the Stalinist USSR would be a departure from reality.

This article demonstrates that, despite the existence of a planned economy, there was room in the USSR economy for the expression of an economic initiative through cooperativism. In the first years after the October Revolution, cooperatives contributed to the fight against hunger, the revival of industry, and electrification, while the state actively promoted the development of the cooperative movement. The system of state regulation in the initial stages, especially during the New Economic Policy (NEP) period, produced colossal results. During the NEP period, the cooperative movement demonstrated double growth in many aspects (Albertovich, 2022).

Another fundamental point demonstrated in this work is that the Stalin years saw, on paper, an increase in the number of cooperatives, as well as their turnover, but these were entities tightly controlled by the state, so it would be incorrect to refer to this social economy enterprise model as truly cooperative. Thus, it is confirmed that the article’s starting hypothesis is true—that is, the measures promoted in the USSR under Lenin’s leadership were fundamental to the development of cooperativism, but this changed with the death of the revolutionary leader and the rise to power of his successor, Stalin, who opted for a model based on strict state control of cooperatives, with no room for self-management.